Amendment G (Constitutional): Modify Property Tax Exemption for Veterans with Disabilities - YES

Amendment G: Modify Property Tax Exemption for Veterans with Disabilities

“Expands the property tax exemption for veterans with a disability to veterans with individual unemployability status”

A “yes” vote on Amendment G reduces the property taxes paid by some veteran homeowners by expanding the existing homestead exemption to include veterans whose disability is rated as making them unemployable. Veterans have served us, and this reduction is logical.

A “yes” vote would have supported expanding the property tax exemption for veterans with a disability to include veterans with individual unemployability status as determined by the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs.

A “no” vote would have opposed expanding the property tax exemption for veterans with a disability to include veterans with individual unemployability status, thereby maintaining current law providing the property tax exemption to veterans rated as 100% permanently disabled by the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs.

Amendment H (Constitutional): Judicial Discipline Procedures and Confidentiality - YES

Amendment H: Judicial Discipline Procedures and Confidentiality

“Creates an independent judicial discipline adjudicative board and create rules for the judicial discipline process”

An amendment to create an independent adjudicative board to preside over ethical misconduct hearings involving judges; and allow for increased public access to judicial discipline proceedings and records. This Amendment increases transparency in government.

A “yes” vote supports creating an independent judicial discipline adjudicative board and create rules for the judicial discipline process.

A “no” vote opposes creating an independent judicial discipline adjudicative board and create rules for the judicial discipline process.

Amendment I (Constitutional): Constitutional Bail Exception for First Degree Murder - YES

Amendment I: Constitutional Bail Exception for First Degree Murder

“Remove the right to bail in cases of first-degree murder when the proof is evident or the presumption is great”

A “yes” vote on Amendment I allows judges to deny bail to a person charged with first degree murder when the judge determines that the proof is evident or presumption is great that the person committed the crime. Judges should reserve this right to remove violent offenders from the street pending trial.

A “yes” vote supports removing the right to bail in cases of first-degree murder when the proof is evident or the presumption is great.

A “no” vote opposes removing the right to bail in cases of first-degree murder when the proof is evident or the presumption is great.

Amendment J (Constitutional): Remove Constitutional Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment - (No recommendation, please study)

Amendment J: Remove Constitutional Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment

“Remove the provision of the state constitution that says “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state”

A “yes” vote supports removing the provision of the state constitution that says that “only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.”

A “no” vote opposes removing the provision of the state constitution that says that “only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.”

Amendment K (Constitutional): Modify Constitutional Election Deadlines - NO

Amendment K: Modify Constitutional Election Deadlines

“Change deadlines for filing initiative and referendum petition signatures and judicial retention notice deadlines to remove one week in order to allow one extra week for the secretary of state to certify ballot order and content and election officials’ deadline to transmit ballots”

Amendment K makes certain election filing deadlines one week earlier. Specifically, the measure moves up the deadline for citizens to submit signatures for initiatives and referendum petitions and for judges to file a declaration of intent to seek another term. Citizens already have an almost insurmountable battle when applying for ballot titling and signature gathering. Removing another week from this process places another burden on an already daunting task, as the legislature wants ballot initiatives to be difficult.

A “yes” vote supports changing the signature deadline for initiative and referendum signature gathering, thereby shorting the collection period by one week, as well as moving the deadline for justices and judges to file declarations of intent to run for another term by one week, in order to allow one extra week for the secretary of state to certify ballot order and content and election officials’ deadline to transmit ballots.

A “no” vote opposes changing the signature deadline for initiative and referendum signature gathering, thereby shorting the collection period by one week, as well as moving the deadline for justices and judges to file declarations of intent to run for another term by one week, in order to allow one extra week for the secretary of state to certify ballot order and content and election officials’ deadline to transmit ballots.

AMENDMENT 79 (Constitutional): Right to Abortion (Taxpayer Funded) - NO

AMENDMENT 79 Right to Abortion

“Provide for a state constitutional right to abortion and repeal provision banning the use of public funds for abortions.”

This initiative would create a constitutional amendment that would enshrine the right to an abortion in Colorado’s Constitution. The measure would also assure that state and local public employees and Medicaid recipients are covered for abortion in their health insurance plans. Taxpayers should not have to fund the poor decisions, poor planning, and/or disregard for life that their neighbors suffer from. Healthcare payors should not be forced to cover abortion and related procedures.

A “yes” vote supports creating a right to abortion in the state constitution and allowing the use of public funds for abortion.

A no” vote opposes creating a right to abortion in the state constitution and opposes repealing a constitutional provision that bans the use of public funds for abortion. 

AMENDMENT 80 (Constitutional): Statutory Right to School Choice - NO*

* Otero GOP opposes this Amendment due to overly complex wording that makes it a target for misinterpretation. It's a great idea and Otero GOP is in favor of school choice, but lawyers see a problem because the wording could actually bring action to end school choice.

AMENDMENT 80  Statutory Right to School Choice

“Provide a constitutional right to school choice including neighbourhood schools, charter schools, private schools, homeschools, open enrolment options, and future innovations in education.”

This initiative enshrines the right to school choice into the state Constitution; the right for parents to direct the education of their child to enroll them in a public school, charter school, private school; homeschool them; or send them to another district through open enrolment. Given the repeated attacks on charter schools by the legislature and the failed state of public education, parents must continue to have options. Yet, some conservative groups are raising the alarm on the language in the measure which gives “a K-12 child the right to school choice” and that “all children have the right to equal opportunity to access a quality education” which they believe will give the government more control over every choice available and usurp parental authority. The language is short and concise, but readers should vote their conscience, as voters are wary of education bills that lead to bigger government.

A “yes” vote supports the following:

• providing in the state constitution that “each K-12 child has the right to school choice;”
• providing that “all children have the right to equal opportunity to access a quality education,” and that “parents have the right to direct the education of their children;” and
• defining school choice to include neighbourhood schools, charter schools, private schools, homeschools, open enrolment options, and future innovations in education.

A “no” vote opposes creating a constitutional right to school choice, which would include neighbourhood schools, charter schools, private schools, homeschools, open enrolment options, and future innovations in education.

Amendment JJ (Statutory): Retain Additional Sports Betting Tax Revenue - NO

Amendment JJ: Retain Additional Sports Betting Tax Revenue

“Allow the state to retain tax revenue collected above $29 million annually from the tax on sports betting proceeds”

The measure would allow the state to retain tax revenue collected above $29 million annually from the tax on sports betting proceeds. A no vote requires the state to give back anything above the $29M, which is the correct mechanism when the entities are over-taxed. Allowing businesses to retain more of their revenue is good economic policy.

A “yes” vote supports allowing the state to retain tax revenue collected above $29 million annually from the tax on sports betting proceeds authorized by voters in 2019.

A “no” vote opposes allowing the state to retain tax revenue collected above $29 million annually from the tax on sports betting proceeds authorized by voters in 2019, thereby requiring the state to refund tax revenue above $29 million to casinos and sports betting operators.

Amendment KK (Statutory): Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax - NO

Amendment KK: Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax

“Levy a 6.5% excise tax on firearms and ammunition manufacturing and sales to be imposed on firearms dealers, manufacturers, and ammunition vendors and appropriating the revenue to the Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax Cash Fund to be used to fund crime victim services programs, education programs, and mental and behavioural health programs for children and veterans”

Prop. KK will impose a 6.5% tax on firearms and ammunition for Coloradoans in addition to the Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (10%-11% federal tax on firearms and ammo). This is nothing more than an attempt by Colorado democrats to price people out of their 2nd Amendment rights. This is another law to hurt law-abiding gun-owners.

A “yes” vote supports levying a 6.5% excise tax on the manufacture and sale of firearms and ammunition to be imposed on firearms dealers, manufacturers, and ammunition vendors and appropriating the revenue to the Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax Cash Fund to be used to fund crime victim services programs, education programs, and mental and behavioral health programs for children and veterans.

A “no” vote opposes levying a 6.5% excise tax on the manufacture and sale of firearms and ammunition to be imposed on firearms dealers, manufacturers, and ammunition vendors.

PROPOSITION 127 (Statutory): Prohibit Trophy Hunting - NO

PROPOSITION 127  Prohibit Trophy Hunting

“Prohibit trophy hunting, defined as “intentionally killing, wounding, pursuing, or entrapping a mountain lion, bobcat, or lynx; or discharging or releasing any deadly weapon at a mountain lion, bobcat, or lynx”

This initiative creates a ban on recreational trophy hunting and commercial fur trapping in Colorado. According to Colorado Parks & Wildlife, hunting is one way in which the big cat population is effectively managed, and the populations at present are ideal. Animal extremists are using ballot box biology to scare voters about hunting and firearms, using misleading terms like “cruel death,” to accomplish other means, mostly anti-gun rhetoric.

A “yes” vote supports defining and prohibiting trophy hunting as “intentionally killing, wounding, pursuing, or entrapping a mountain lion, bobcat, or lynx; or discharging or releasing any deadly weapon at a mountain lion, bobcat, or lynx.”

A “no” vote opposes defining and prohibiting trophy hunting as “intentionally killing, wounding, pursuing, or entrapping a mountain lion, bobcat, or lynx; or discharging or releasing any deadly weapon at a mountain lion, bobcat, or lynx.”

PROPOSITION 128 (Statutory): Truth In Sentencing (Eligibility for Parole) - YES

PROPOSITION 128 Truth In Sentencing (Eligibility for Parole)

“Require that persons convicted of certain violent crimes serve more of their sentences before being eligible for parole”

This initiative would require offenders convicted of crimes that occur after January 1, 2025 to serve 85% of their sentence before being eligible for parole, versus the current requirement to serve 75% of their terms. Parole eligibility would remain the same for offenders convicted of crimes that occur before Jan. 1, 2025 and for offenders with two or more prior violent crime convictions, who must serve their full sentence before being eligible for parole.  This initiative gives victims and the public more transparent expectations about offender sentencing.

A “yes” vote supports requiring offenders convicted of certain violent crimes on or after January 1, 2025, to serve at least 85% of their sentence before parole eligibility, and offenders with two prior violent crime convictions to serve their full sentence before beginning parole.

A “no” vote opposes making changes to parole eligibility, thereby maintaining current law providing parole eligibility to individuals convicted of certain violent crimes after completing 75% of their imposed sentence minus any time earned off of the sentence for good behavior.

PROPOSITION 129 (Statutory): Establish Qualifications and Registration for Veterinary Professional Associate - (No recommendation, please study)

PROPOSITION 129 Establish Qualifications and Registration for Veterinary Professional Associate

“Create the profession of veterinary professional associate (VPA) requiring a master’s degree and registration with the state board of veterinary medicine.”

This initiative creates the profession called veterinary professional associate, which requires a master’s degree and registration with the State Board of Veterinary Medicine. These changes are a potential solution to the state’s shortage of veterinary care, while also expanding access in rural communities. Several models show that VPAs will decrease the cost of veterinary care. In addition, VPAs could also help fill the need for workers in animal welfare organizations.

A “yes” vote supports creating a new profession, the veterinary professional associate (VPA), requiring a master’s degree and registration with the state board of veterinary medicine, to practice under supervision of a licensed veterinarian.

A “no” vote opposes creating a new profession, the veterinary professional associate (VPA).

Colorado Veterinary Medical Association Statement

KeepOurPetsSafe.org shares serious concerns about this bill.

PROPOSITION 130 (Statutory): Funding for Law Enforcement - YES

PROPOSITION 130 Funding for Law Enforcement

“Allocate state revenue to a new fund, called the Peace Officer Training and Support Fund, for law enforcement recruitment, retention, training, and death benefits”

This initiative creates the Peace Officer Training and Support Fund, which would provide $350M funding for law enforcement officer training, retention, and hiring, as well as up to $1M in benefits for spouses and children of officers or first responders killed in the line of duty. The ‘Back the Blue’ initiative ensures that Colorado makes a much-needed investment to fight back against the rising tide of crime and illegal drug trafficking without raising taxes. Since the initiative specifies that money can never come from raising taxes, funds will come from the general budget, taking money away from less valuable Democrat programs.

A “yes” vote supports creating the Peace Officer Training and Support Fund to provide funding for law enforcement training, retention, and hiring; training surrounding the use of force; and death benefits for surviving spouses and children of officers or first responders killed in the line of duty.

A “no” vote opposes creating the Peace Officer Training and Support Fund to provide funding for law enforcement training, retention, and hiring; training surrounding the use of force; and death benefits for surviving spouses and children of officers or first responders killed in the line of duty.

PROPOSITION 131 (Statutory): Concerning the Conduct of Elections (RANKED CHOICE VOTING) - NO

PROPOSITION 131 Concerning the Conduct of Elections (RANKED CHOICE VOTING)

“Establish top-four primaries and ranked-choice voting (RCV) for federal and state offices in Colorado”

This initiative establishes a top-four ranked choice voting system in Colorado for congressional, gubernatorial, attorney general, secretary of state, treasurer, University of Colorado Board of Regents, state Board of Education and legislative elections. RCV confuses voters, whose ballots will be discarded if all candidates are not ranked. In extreme liberal Colorado, RCV ensures the most extreme Democrats prevail, and less conservative choices for office end up winning elected offices. RCV is supported by Kent Thiry, whose goal is to eliminate parties and move to a centrist system.

A “yes” vote supports establishing top-four primary elections and ranked-choice voting for U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, governor, attorney general, secretary of state, treasurer, Colorado University board of regents, state board of education, and state legislature.

A “no” vote opposes establishing top-four primary elections and ranked-choice voting for U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, governor, attorney general, secretary of state, treasurer, Colorado University board of regents, state board of education, and state legislature.